It's bad - should be banned - sign up here

Bananaman

Think it explains the situation with the prohibition on 'practical shooting' here beautifully


Same sheep - different wool.


http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=126447284080&h=xTWuJ&u=ZjLqF&ref=nf

BornToKill

Bananaman wrote: »

Think it explains the situation with the prohibition on 'practical shooting' here beautifully

With one big difference though. Lots of questions were asked and answered in both the dail and seanad and hours taken up in debate before it was put to a vote.

In fact, there wasn't really any attention paid to anything else in the bill such as what the cost of license would be, or when the guidelines would be issued, or what storage security standards would apply, or what the new license would look like, or who could act as a referee, or why eveyone has to reapply to keep what they have. Or any of the other important questions that have been coming up here big time for the last two weeks. Not one minute was given to asking any of those questions.

I'd have liked if those questions were asked and answered. There would be less confusion now.

tonysopprano

BornToKill wrote: »

With one big difference though. Lots of questions were asked and answered in both the dail and seanad and hours taken up in debate before it was put to a vote.

In fact, there wasn't really any attention paid to anything else in the bill such as what the cost of license would be, or when the guidelines would be issued, or what storage security standards would apply, or what the new license would look like, or who could act as a referee, or why eveyone has to reapply to keep what they have. Or any of the other important questions that have been coming up here big time for the last two weeks. Not one minute was given to asking any of those questions.

I'd have liked if those questions were asked and answered. There would be less confusion now.

Is that not what your representitive body or the FCP was for. If you wanted questions asked and answered, then why did you not bother to do something about it (or do you feel that you are not good enough to be in the 2% grouping). If certain people, who had concerns of their own, went and done something about it, I dont see where you can complain because you didn't bother or didn't do enough to get it brought up.

BornToKill

No complaining at all from me.

It's other people complaining about the result for practical but no-one can say there were no questions asked shure it was debated for hours. Voted on too - twice.

I just think the time could have been used more productively.

Sparks

In fairness BTK, it was hardly debated on by people who had much domain expertise. You had a few who knew law; one who knew firearms (shotguns to be exact); and everyone else was arguing off briefing sheets, which meant that those arguing weren't really able to argue based on the merits of the thing itself. Granted, that's all our system allows; but it's not fair to say that a debate in the Dail is authoritative in regard to the technical side of things. (Obviously it's authoritative legally, but the law and reality are often ill-matched at best).

Rovi

Sparks wrote: »

In fairness BTK, it was hardly debated on by people who had much domain expertise.

That's what particularly struck me at the Dail Committee stage I attended.
Nobody is expecting the Minister or the opposition spokespersons to be experts on the precise details of the activity the proposed legislation covers, but the disparity between the backup and assistance available to the Minister during the course of the debate stands in stark contrast to that available to the opposition.
The Minister has at his disposal a small army of civil servants, consisting of a senior mandarin or two who sit at his side and whisper in his ear or slip him hastily written notes on an almost constant basis, all supported by a horde of minions who dash in and out of the chamber with bundles of papers and files to feed to their superiors.
The opposition meanwhile, sit in splendid isolation with nothing but each other and their briefing documentation to work with.
Points come up or statements are made which we as knowledgeable enthusiasts know are wrong or require clarification, but there's no facility for anyone to convey this information to the opposition spokespersons during the course of the debate, so the moment passes and the opportunity to rebut is lost.
Certainly, you can make clarifications or rebuttals afterwards, but it's too late by then as the original point or statement is now in the official record without apparent challenge.

Basically, the process is heavily weighted in favour of the Minister on these occasions.

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

The opposition meanwhile, sit in splendid isolation with nothing but each other and their briefing documentation to work with.

I thought they were allowed have assistants present?

Basically, the process is heavily weighted in favour of the Minister on these occasions.

I get the impression that it's all a bit of a facade and that the real work is done behind the scenes beforehand and afterwards.

For example, the amendments that actually made it through to committee stage seem to bear little or no relationship to the ones actually proposed. Sinn Fein seemed to be talking to a lot of people, but proposed no amendments themselves.

Rovi

rrpc wrote: »

I thought they were allowed have assistants present?

I don't know what the usual procedure is, but certainly on the day I was there, they had no-one.

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

I don't know what the usual procedure is, but certainly on the day I was there, they had no-one.

So they propose their motion or ask their question and the Minister answers with loads of supporting stuff and they nod and move on.

Just seemed terribly choreographed to me, like a performance put on for the audience without any real purpose other than 'being seen to be democratic'

I always think that anything that public can't be that 'real'.

Rovi

rrpc wrote: »

So they propose their motion or ask their question and the Minister answers with loads of supporting stuff and they nod and move on.

Just seemed terribly choreographed to me, like a performance put on for the audience without any real purpose other than 'being seen to be democratic'

I always think that anything that public can't be that 'real'.

Perhaps what I saw was the exception, but certainly on that particular day, the opposition spokespersons had no external assistance.

It appeared to work like this:
Unless they happen to have a personal interest and expertise in the subject under discussion, all they have is their briefing documentation and whatever information they've retained from their meetings with interested parties beforehand.
The Minister on the other hand, has a small army at his beck and call.

All this stuff should be live on TV, in my opinion.

Bananaman

Not to mention the Minister bullying the opposition so that when they asked him a pointed question ala 'If it is a major international sport, can it not be recognised?' he responded with

'The Deputy would want to watch himself on this'

VERY Democratic alright.

B'Man

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

All this stuff should be live on TV, in my opinion.

Well it is live, or at least pictures are live on the web. No sound though

G17

rrpc wrote: »

Well it is live, or at least pictures are live on the web. No sound though

Where's Evelyn Glennie when you need her?:D

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Not to mention the Minister bullying the opposition so that when they asked him a pointed question ala 'If it is a major international sport, can it not be recognised?' he responded with

'The Deputy would want to watch himself on this'

VERY Democratic alright.

B'Man

That sounds a bit like something from 'Yes Minister': "If you're not careful, people might believe that you're 'not sound'"

Really tore strips off him